#Poverty actual or relative?

When most people think of poverty they think of poor people without enough to eat living hand to mouth day to day - fairly described as living in "real poverty".

In the UK apparently we have mass poverty and it is getting worse. However we know this is not true in terms of real poverty. It is probably true if you use the very misleading measure of "relative poverty". (relative poverty is the statistic that anti austerity advocates use).

Relative poverty is measured against society averages. If the average is to have a 40 inch surround sound TV and you don't have one then you are relatively poor - but you are not necessarily really poor. If the state pension goes up - then so does relative poverty as a measure! Someone relatively poor in the UK would be wealthy in terms of someone poor in Nepal because very few people in the UK are actually poor in Nepalese terms - in real poverty terms.

When the UK Welfare State was originally conceived its basis and intention was to tackle real poverty - a wonderful thing.

However the Welfare State has run out of control. It has increasingly set welfare benefits against a measure of relative poverty.

Some of the effects of this are :-

• successive governments running huge deficits and building up a massive debt stockpile. The deficit and debt has become so large it could sink us if not addressed. (see Greece).
• the perversion of people choosing a welfare life style over work.
• people on benefits receiving more than people working.
• a morally bankrupted underclass.
• people having children without needing to think about financial consequences because state welfare will provide. Some argue young women are motivated to have children to secure a relatively good standard of living under current welfare (especially housing).
• an inability to help properly those in real poverty because valuable and limited tax payers resources are being squandered on maintaining an unrealistically small relative poverty gap.

I believe welfare should be measured and based against the cost of getting people out of real poverty. I have little sympathy or concern for those living in relative poverty - because it sets the Welfare bar too high. It is too high because it is unaffordable. It is too high because it prevents us helping adequately those in real poverty need by squandering resources. It is too high because it makes a welfare based lifestyle a lifestyle choice for some - they need to work not just for societies benefit but for their own moral and emotional wellbeing. The welfare bar is too high because it has allowed an underclass to develop. Basing welfare payments on a relative poverty measure means people are disincentivised to work.

My view - no one in the UK (who is legally allowed to be here )should live in real poverty. However you should get out of relative poverty by hard work.( good for society but just as important - good for the individual and their families. Reward from work is the motivator for work. If you hand out a decent lifestyle without the need to work then many will choose not to work of course ).

One final point - State Pension. I have no issue with this being based on a relative poverty measure. If someone has had a full working life and qualifies for a state pension by having paid into to it then they should receive a decent pension. (working and paying into it is key). Similarly some one with a health or disability issue (as long as it is vigorously assessed and confirmed) should be allowed to receive a  state benefit enough to provide a relatively decent lifestyle.